New Theory Explains The WTC Twin Tower Collapse, Blows A Hole Into The Conspiracy Theories
By on September 21st, 2011

Conspiracy theorists can eat their hats. A materials expert from Norway, investigating the collapse of the WTC twin towers, has come up with a new theory explaining why they collapsed in the spectacular fashion seen on 11th September (9/11), 2001. Christian Simensen, a material scientist in SINTEF, the largest independent research organisation in Scandinavia, has claimed that it all has to do with alumina coming in contact with sprinkling water.

Our Tribute to 9/11:  http://techie-buzz.com/tech-news/wtc-event-911-timeline-tribute.html

A photo clearly showing an explosion below the area where the plane hit. This has led conspiracy theorists to conclude that the entire building was booby-trapped.

Simensen pointed out that molten aluminium running down to meet some hundred liters of water would create an explosion strong enough to disintegrate the tube-in-tube structure of the towers. These could easily punch away at solid steel columns. He quoted several instances of known explosions, which resulted when hot aluminium came in contact with mildly warm water, to support his theory. He says:

From other disasters and experiments carried out by the aluminium industry, we know that reactions of this sort can lead to violent explosions.

The Powerful Alumina and Water Bomb

There was no dearth of molten aluminum, as the planes could supply as much as 30 tons of the substance at a temperature close to 15000F for an optimal oxygen-jet fuel mixture. Aluminium even at half that temperature would have done the trick.

This aluminum-water explosion scenario would explain the explosions seen in the building just before they collapsed. The explosions, unexplained till date, have provoked many conspiracy theories, which have constantly claimed that 9/11 was an internal job and that the towers were booby-trapped. This might shut them up, or maybe not.

How Powerful? Very Powerful!

Just to give you an idea of the intensity of the explosion, let me quote a controlled experiment. It was conducted by Alcoa Aluminum. They mixed 20 kilos of molten aluminium with 20 liters of water and used a small quantity of rust as catalyst. Simensen reports the catastrophic observations:

The resulting explosion blew away the entire laboratory and left a crater 30 meters in diameter.

Simensen presented his findings at an international materials meet in San Diego, California and will publish the results in the trade journal Aluminium International Today.

Yet another conspiracy theory bites the dust!

Tags: ,
Author: Debjyoti Bardhan Google Profile for Debjyoti Bardhan
Is a science geek, currently pursuing some sort of a degree (called a PhD) in Physics at TIFR, Mumbai. An enthusiastic but useless amateur photographer, his most favourite activity is simply lazing around. He is interested in all things interesting and scientific.

Debjyoti Bardhan has written and can be contacted at debjyoti@techie-buzz.com.
  • GM

    “Yet another conspiracy theory bites the dust!”

    Wow. A little hasty perhaps.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1221031010 Mick McCrohon

      a little hasty ? only if you are after the TRUE MECHANISM THAT COLLAPSED THE THREE SKYSCRAPERS ON 911 !

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1221031010 Mick McCrohon

        “THREE SKYSCRAPERS ON 911 !” and WTC 7 was NOT hit by 30 tons of molten metal of any description .

      • Debjyoti Bardhan

        I’m sure you believe in the conspiracy theories, but since there are so many varieties of that, I’m curious to ask – what is your explanation for the WTC collapse?

  • facebook_Mick_McCrohon.1221031010

    Look this guy “Christian Simensen” is demonstrably an idiot ,how could
    anybody come up with so many ridiculous ideas on a single theory ?
    Example ” This molten aluminium could then have flowed downward through staircases
    and gaps in the floor, causing a chemical reaction with water from
    sprinklers on the levels below. ” How come as it “flowed downward through staircases
    and gaps in the floor” it didn’t start massive fires on every floor …moron ?
    Or this gem “Simensen speculates that the two commercial jets were immediately
    trapped inside an insulating layer of building debris within the
    skyscrapers.” What the hell were you smoking when that little nugget of bovine excrement ?
    And who wouldn’t want to be the guy who waits around day in day out to carry out this “mission impossible” ?
    “Firing
    a rocket with fire-retardant that could coat the aircraft body could
    also help prevent metal alloy from melting.” …”a rocket with
    fire-retardant” WTF retard !

    I’d love to see when and where this “In a controlled experiment carried out by Alcoa Aluminium, 20 kilos (44 pounds) of molten aluminium was allowed to react with 20 litres of
    water, along with a small quantity of rust.” occurred . Notice how we have “20 kilos (44 pounds) of molten aluminum” and “with 20 litres of water”
    quite specific amounts of ingredients until it come to the ferrous
    oxide (rust) .Now if it was 20 kilograms of ferrous oxide (rust) and it
    was mixed with 20 kilograms of aluminum molten or otherwise,it would be
    thermite ! I would like to see the methodology of this experiment .As
    well as the “when and where”.

    • Debjyoti Bardhan

      Instead of abusing, may be a little logic would help. The building was clearly smoking from the inside and many people died because of the smoke. Why would you think that there was no fire inside the building?
      As for the fire-retardant, I never mentioned it in my article and I’ll not respond to it.
      About the controlled experiment, it is characteristic of scientists to mix specific amounts of substances. What is wrong with 20 kilos of Al and 20 liters of water? Rust is a catalyst and surely, the structure being a steel structure, would have enough rust to fulfill the criteria. Please do check upon the methodology, but just being sceptical about the methodology of a controlled experiment doesn’t put its validity into doubt.

  • Pingback: [QUESTION] Do you honestly believe 9/11 was a US government conspiracy? - Page 15 - FreddysHouse

  • Craig
  • Pingback: Inilah Teori Baru Runtuhnya WTC « Fisika Elby

  • none

    Yes, aluminum is known to be extremely powerful and hot, so it crawled across the street, into WTC7, took a quick tour around the building and then blew it off like nothing.

    • gordon jones

      How much is a ilittle rust? Thermite has specifics to mix the formula.How was the rust moved from the steel columns to the right spot to combine with the H2O and Alum.? When an expert gives instructions to mix an explosive he states a “little of this & that” ?

      little rust .

  • gordon jones

    How much is a little of an element to be mixed into a formula? When an expert gives specifics, he gives the amounts in actual figures. So, what is a little rust?

  • http://www.bing.com/ Jolyn

    That’s what we’ve all been waiting for! Great ptiosng!

  • Aliccam

    Why is it that anything that appears to back the official story, no matter how tenuous immediately gets the credence of the media, yet the evidence to the contrary is never even mentioned, without a slur or innuendo on the information.
    The SINTEF report makes a lot of very tenuous suppositions. If we follow their supposition, the aircraft in the second tower to be hit, piled up in the corner (away from the main supporting columns) of the building (forming a kiln like situation), and subsequently dripped molten aluminium down, surely the collapse would have been in this corner and below, and not over the whole building. SINTEF itself call this a ‘theory’, they did not make any forensic examination of material evidence.
    I still think there should be a full and independent enquiry, which actually includes as part of it, (NIST 9/11 offficial report did not) these ‘explosions’ which you now seem happy to embrace, even if just to put closure for all of the thousands of ‘demented fools’ who think otherwise.

  • jgibsosman

    hello techie buzz…
    I just received an article about the aluminum + water theory, read it, did my best to show why it was pretty absurd in a reply, but complimented the writer of the email to me for at least taking the initiative to look it up, since that is a big improvement over a year ago, when my statements were just met by “you’re nuts” from the same person.

    As someone said somewhere sometime, getting people to understand the reality of 9/11 is sort of like filling up a bathtub really slowly. It happens, but not in an instant.

    As a result of the AL + H2O article I searched out other comments regarding this crazy theory and found this page, and these intelligent comments, and found I could even comment here.
    I’m not a scientist, just another bozo on the bus. But i worked as a carpenter and construction worker for 30 years and had plenty of experience trying to cut or break steel or concrete using hammers, jackhammers, and saws. I have no explosives experience beyond fireworks on the 4th of july.
    . I know steel doesn’t melt itself, nor will kerosene melt it, (except maybe inside a blast furnace with a stream of pressurized air or oxygen) and neither does reinforced concrete blow itself up into dust which goes up and out and out to sea and into two states in the form of microscopic particles.
    I am totally convinced the Towers and WTC7 were exploded.
    I think that, mainly, standard commercial demolition charges were used, although I also believe that thermite, thermate, or perhaps a sol-gel aluminotheric compound, ala the Livermore Labs stuff, could have been used.
    Often debunkers use “Occam’s Razor” to try and prove that the planes and fires did the destruction. I believe Occam’s Razor really indicates the use of typical standard demolition charges (just like the ones CD,I uses) more than it indicates the use of the exotic explosives, although I am not trying to deny the probable use of those as well.
    . That’s what the video evidence indicates very strongly, to my mind.
    Please take a few minutes to see my new, short (3:27 long) clip at
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWp4ZM4hnGw . If you think it is valid, please refer it to others. I put it up on Sept 2, 12 days ago. It’s a newly made connection (sort of) showing what I am trying to say here. My grandfather Robert B. Sosman was a real scientist. I’m not. He was a world expert on silica, on high-temperature thermometry, and on refractory ceramics and one of his careers was as assistant research director at a U.S. Steel plant in Kearney NJ in the old days. He died in 1967 but were he still alive he could probably debunk the gravity/kerosene theory and the aluminum/water theory with ease. I guess I am trying to sort of live up to my DNA. I don’t have that level of knowledge of physics or chemistry but fortunately, common sense and a pair of eyes are all that are really required to determine the WTC towers and WTC7 were obviously blown to smithereens by explosive demolitions. Remember, being a truther is an honor, not a detriment. Keep up all the good work. Nice to meet you all. I’ll be back.Gib Sosman

  • Jackthesmilingblack

    Another USCS-metric measurement term mishmash.

 
Copyright 2006-2012 Techie Buzz. All Rights Reserved. Our content may not be reproduced on other websites. Content Delivery by MaxCDN